Exploring the process of global citizen learning and the student mindset

Journal of Studies in International Education2015, Vol. 19(3) 225 –245

© 2014 European Association for International Education

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1028315314547822jsi.sagepub.com

Article

Exploring the Process of Global Citizen Learning and the Student Mind-Set

Kathleen Lilley1, Michelle Barker2, and Neil Harris1

AbstractIncreasingly, university and employer discourse identify a need for graduates to have an intellectual and global “mind-set” beyond disciplinary competencies and national boundaries. Universities aiming to educate global citizens show limited outcomes. Global citizen research has investigated the mobility experience, yet limited attention has been paid to the theoretical process of student change to inform how domestic students could engage in comparable learning experiences. The purpose of this study was to expand knowledge on the process of global citizen learning and the student mind-set. Two phases of research gathered in-depth information from international higher education key informants and mobility students. The research resulted in a conceptual model for global citizen learning and an “identikit” of recognizable markers for a global citizen disposition. The model identifies facilitators and manifestations of “student change” and identifies reflexivity, relationality, criticality, and the social imaginary as capacities of global mind-set. These findings suggest that educating all students as global citizens could be more closely aligned to the internationalization of education and employability agendas.

Keywordsglobal citizen, internationalization of higher education, cosmopolitanism, disposition, mind-set

1Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia2Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Corresponding Author:Kathleen Lilley, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Parklands Drive, Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia. Email: [email protected]

547822 JSIXXX10.1177/1028315314547822Journal of Studies in International EducationLilley et al.research-article2014

at Griffith University on July 4, 2015jsi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]

http://jsi.sagepub.com/

226 Journal of Studies in International Education 19(3)

Introduction

Universities claiming to educate global citizens offer limited evidence (Rhoads & Szelenyi, 2011). Often universities neglect to explain how they interpret what a global citizen means, particularly in terms of agency and responsibility. Researchers in higher education have described the notion of global citizenship as a disposition incorporat-ing an ethical, social, and professional understanding (Barrie, 2004), a global collec-tivist (Rhoads & Szelenyi, 2011), and through dimensions of social responsibility, awareness and civic engagement (Morais & Ogden, 2011; Schattle, 2008), environ-mental attitudes, values and norms (Tarrant, 2010), and developing a sense of “self in the world” (Killick, 2012, p. 13). Global citizen research has centered on international mobility, with limited exploration of the process of global citizen learning.

Internationalization of education is a key priority of universities, yet the benefits to students and engagement of academics persist as lesser priorities. However, the impor-tance of graduate employability is attracting attention. Jones (2013) made the prag-matic link between the “soft skills” that employers desire with the benefits of mobility. However, she highlights the lack of awareness within the higher education sector about the potential benefits of engaging students in international and intercultural learning “at home.” Jones (2013) recommended exploring the domestic intercultural context of transformational learning to promote mobility comparable learning for all students.

Stakeholder groups have expressed their views on the “ideal global graduate.” United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2009) concluded that the education of critical and ethical thinking graduates is fundamental to the university purpose. Similarly, the International Association of Universities (IAU, 2012) called for “better preparation of students as national and global citizens and as productive members of the workforce” (p. 2). Employer groups look for critical thinking capacities in job applicants and recommended greater synthesis between the aims of liberal education and professional education (Georgetown University, 2013; Maguire Associates Inc, 2012). Agreeing with this position, the American Association of Universities and Colleges (AAC&U, 2012) explained a liberal education liberates the mind and cultivates social responsibility.

In summary, there appears to be broad support for educating critical and ethical thinking global citizens in higher education. The purpose of this research was to explore the process of global citizen learning and expand our understanding of the student mind-set as they are learning to become global citizens.

Literature Review

Contemporary higher education is increasingly associated with preparing students ethically and intellectually for global citizenship and productive careers (American Association of Colleges and Universities [AAC&U], 2012; Development Education Association [DEA], 2006; IAU, 2012; UNESCO, 2009). The DEA (2006) charted a way forward through a paper titled “The Global University: The Role of the



Lilley et al. 227

Curriculum”; however, widespread evidence of uptake in universities has not been forthcoming. Rhoads and Szelényi (2011) comprehensively investigated global citi-zenship across four geographically diverse universities and concluded there was a lack of theoretical frameworks to guide global citizen education.

The impacts of globalization and neoliberalism have positioned universities in complex terrain, described by Bourdieu (1993, cited in Marginson, 2007, p. 6) as “uneven, hierarchical, shifting, and contested.” Rhoads and Szelenyi (2011) explained that although the neoliberal liberalizing of trade was purported to be the best way to advance societies, its influence on university “public good” through internationaliza-tion of higher education lacks evidence of social benefit. Instead, the economic ratio-nale for internationalization has dominated (De Wit, 2002).

Internationalization and neoliberal policy were critiqued through the “enterprise university” (Marginson & Considine, 2000) and “entrepreneurial university and aca-demic capitalism” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). These studies identified the organi-zational, social, and cultural impacts of neoliberal policies on university form, function, and key actors’ behaviors. In particular, these studies confirmed how financial priori-ties have overtaken the university role of “public good.” Specifically, Marginson (2012) explained how the New Public Management (NPM) fails to acknowledge the concept of “public good” research and the transmission of knowledge through teach-ing and learning.

Clarifying the impact of neoliberal policies on education, Rizvi and Lingard (2010) claimed that social values have not been abandoned: “Instead, the efficiency of educa-tion is assessed through its contribution to producing workers, with knowledge, skills and attitudes relevant to increasing productivity” (p. 78). Yet, Freire and Shor (1987) and Pring (1986) criticized education based on productivity. They claimed a value-free professional education risks propelling graduates into an ambiguous local and global society, inadequately prepared for complexity and difference. These scholars assert students need imagination and habits of intellectual scrutiny to broaden and transform their outlooks. Expanding on this view, Rizvi (2009) and Marginson and Sawir (2011) explained the globally interconnected nature of knowledge and understanding. They considered the social imaginary (Appadurai, 1996), reflexivity (Beck, 2000), relation-ality, and criticality to be essential cognitive capacities for students’ global learning. They claimed these capacities foster a broader mind-set, allowing students to engage imaginatively with the moral and interconnected nature of a globalized existence.

According to Green (2012), fostering a student’s moral compass is an essential component of the global citizen disposition. Mobility research has attempted to quan-titatively measure the development of a student’s moral compass through measures of social responsibility; global competence and global civic engagement (Morais & Ogden, 2011); and environmental values, attitudes, and norms (Tarrant, 2010). Yet, there has been little translation of this research into approaches to learning beyond mobility. Internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) is becoming more widespread in Australia and the European Union, yet there is limited research demonstrating students developing as global citizens as an outcome of IoC (Jones & Killick, 2013). As a way forward for teaching and learning, a number of authors have recommended




cosmopolitanism as an appropriate theory to underpin student-learning frameworks (Caruana, 2014; Lilley, Barker, & Harris, 2014; Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Rhoads & Szelenyi, 2011; Rizvi, 2009).

Notwithstanding an interest in cosmopolitanism and higher education, Marginson and Sawir (2011) explained, “cosmopolitanism can follow different paths” (p. 62). Pogge (2002) described cosmopolitanism as a social justice issue, whereas Appiah (2006) explained cosmopolitanism as a moral ethic that promotes a sense of “other-ness” to help build habits of co-existence. From an epistemological perspective, Rizvi (2009) described cosmopolitanism as an instrument of knowing and critical under-standing for moral improvement. As such, learning is “always in a state of becoming” (p. 264). Further to the moral lens, Vertovec and Cohen (2002) proposed that transfor-mative cosmopolitanism promotes “intellectual thinking,” and a mind-set for under-standing the interconnecting influences of globalization (Vertovec & Cohen, 2002). In response to criticisms of the utopian nature of cosmopolitanism, Beck and Sznaider (2006) claimed the cosmopolitan outlook signifies realism not idealism. A realist approach infers “cosmopolitan common sense” (p. 19) and assumes the majority of human beings would be willing to defend a minimum number of substantive norms. In summary, despite prolific publication on cosmopolitanism, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating whether a cosmopolitan approach to learning influences students’ mind-sets. (Vertovec & Cohen, 2002).

Transformative learning theory explores the nature of personal change and explains a transformative shift in a frame of reference, occurring in late adolescence and into adulthood (Mezirow, 1991). Transformative shifts in frames of reference lead to a greater understanding of our self, and our relationships with others and with the world (Dirkx, 2008). The focus of transformative learning theory is on

How we learn to negotiate and act on our own purposes, values, feelings, and meanings rather than those we have uncritically assimilated from others to gain greater control over our lives as socially responsible, clear thinking decision makers (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, p. 8).

Informed, free human choice, critical thinking, moral reasoning, self-awareness, and empathy underpin Mezirow’s theory and resonate with a moral and transformative cosmopolitan underpinning for global citizen learning in universities. Authors have expanded on transformative learning theory beyond Mezirow’s rational approach (Dirkx, Mezirow, & Cranton, 2006; E. W. Taylor, 2008).

Four complementary lenses of transformative learning theory have focused on transformative change (Dirkx et al., 2006). Personal transformation can occur devel-opmentally in response to facilitating incidents (Daloz, 2000) and explains how we make meaning through interpersonal relationships and contextual encounters (E. W. Taylor, 2008). The emancipatory lens for transformative learning recognizes the inter-action between critical reflection and social context, and the transforming ontological shift in “being.” To Freire (2004), education can be a tool to “make and remake” our-selves, because we are able to assume responsibility for ourselves as “beings capable



Lilley et al. 229

of knowing” (p. 15). Freire and Shor (1987) explained “conscietisation” as a trigger for agency, engagement, and social transformation. For Dirkx and colleagues (2006), the extra-rational level explains how the “mind and soul” are ontologically integrated in transformative learning. These authors suggested that incorporating emotions, feel-ings, intuition, and imagination into learning offers holism to the theory. However, Kucukaydin and Cranton (2012) considered the soul as mythical and incompatible to rational discourse. Yet, Rizvi (2009) pointed out that understanding global complexity extends beyond practical representations of knowledge and skills. He believes that education should be “framed so that it provides students both an empirical understand-ing of global transformations, but also an ethical orientation towards them” (p. 263). Along a similar line, Nussbaum (2010) explained the ethical notion of the “soul” as representing the “faculties of thought and reason that make us human, and makes our relationships rich human relationships, rather than relationships of mere use and manipulation” (Kindle ebook, loc 164). The presented literature suggests the global citizen disposition is associated with the ethical human faculties of mind and reason.

The ontology of “being” and “becoming” a global citizen in higher education is underexplored, particularly in terms of domestic students. Collins and Selina (1998) critiqued Heidegger’s philosophy of consciousness and concept of “being.” These authors hoped that philosophical thought would contribute to a “fundamental re-awak-ening towards being” (p. 173), so others will contribute to understanding new disposi-tions of “being.” Several authors offer insight into what the disposition of “being” and “becoming” a global citizen could mean through “out of the comfort zone” experi-ences. In an update of transformative learning theory, E. W. Taylor (2007) believed that when students are taken to the “edge of their knowing,” their fundamental sense of “being” ( p. 183) is challenged. Furthermore, Mälkki (2010) described how “edge emotions” function to restore balance when our comfort zone is challenged. To Mälkki (2010), “edge emotions” trigger cognitive processes for “sense making” that allows emotional rebalance to occur. Killick (2012) found “out of the comfort zone” experi-ences encountered during mobility contributed to students’ process of “becoming” global citizens. According to Freire (2004), change is not possible without risk. Offering a disciplinary perspective, Barnett (2004) discussed the nature of emotionally high risk learning, which he calls Zone 4 learning. He considers challenge and uncer-tainty lead students toward engaging in “a new cognitive universe and enjoy new capabilities” to learn amid extreme complexity (p. 258). Yet, he acknowledged prac-ticing such pedagogy is not readily understood.

The literature suggests that university and stakeholder groups identify the global citizen as an ethical and critical thinking disposition. Yet, despite the available evi-dence, there is limited knowledge of what the process of global citizen learning entails. The purpose of this study was to explore informants’ and mobility students’ perspec-tives to identify how the students’ “mind-set for change” might inform our understand-ing of the process of global citizen learning. Moreover, a better understanding of the “process” could offer insight into how universities could integrate global citizen learn-ing into the student experience. It is beyond the scope of this article to expand on the university responsibility for educating global citizens.




Method

A constructivist–interpretive approach was adopted (Elwell, 1996) to understand the process of global citizen learning. Using Yin’s (2009) case study design, two phases of research obtained in-depth data from two different worldview perspectives through semi-structured interviews. A purposive sample of international key informants (referred to as informants) was used in the first phase of the research (n = 26). Twenty-five were working in Australia or the European Union. According to De Wit (2002), European and Australian universities adopt a similar process approach for integrating the international or intercultural perspective into curricula. It was anticipated the simi-larity in approach to internationalization of the curriculum provided a degree of insti-tutional commonality for participants to respond to the research questions. Informants were prominent, senior academics, executives, and policy advisors in international higher education. Gender was equally balanced and there was ethnic diversity. Informants were asked the following questions:

•• How does a mobility experience facilitate change in students (if at all)?•• How do you recognize a global citizen (or “ideal global graduate”)?

The second phase of the research explored students’ perceptions of “change” result-ing from an international mobility experience. Semi-structured interviews were under-taken with Australian and European public health students (n = 21) who completed either a 6- or 12-month mobility experience, through a common European Union–Australian Industrialized Cooperation Instrument (ICI) Joint Mobility Project. Students interviewed were those who responded to an email invitation and with whom interviews were possible. A second interview was undertaken 6 months later (n = 11) to explore students’ perceptions of change after the novelty of the mobility experience dissipated. Students were aware of the purpose of the research, yet were told the inter-view would ask about their experiences of “change.” The aim was to obtain the stu-dents’ stories of how “change” was facilitated, why students thought “change” occurred, and what were the implications of this “change.”

The students were asked the following questions:

•• Can you tell me about a particular incident during your exchange that triggered a personal change/s in you (either positive or negative)?

•• What was it about this incident that triggered “change?” Explain.•• Did this incident contribute to a change in perspective/s or your way of think-

ing? Explain.

All interviews were recorded and transcribed (duration 45-120 min). NVivo soft-ware was used as a research management database and tool.

Data were analyzed through descriptive and conceptual components and elements (Miles & Huberman, 1984), and through a cross-case analysis (Yin, 2009). The researcher’s theoretical insight from the literature is objectively balanced by the



Lilley et al. 231

principles of the hermeneutic circle (Klein & Myers, 1999). These principles provided an analytical framework to achieve rigor of the interpretive process. Specifically, the principles helped to balance the participants’ perspectives with the researcher’s active participation in the research, as a scholarly informed and known insider to the student cohort. An explicit researcher position enabled objectivity, dialogic reasoning, and suspicion to balance the interpretive process. The iterative research process enabled abstraction of the multiple interpretations of the data. Ethical approval was obtained from an Australian university.

Findings

The findings from the two phases of research expand understanding of the process of global citizen learning. The characteristics of the global citizen identified by infor-mants and exemplified through students’ self-reports of change were openness, toler-ance, respect, and responsibility (self/others/planet). However, participants did not hold unrealistic expectations for students’ achievements as global citizens in terms of social transformations, justice, and political activism. Rather, students were beginning the process of transformation with the potential to develop as global citizens. Development starts with leaving the comfort zone, thinking critically about them-selves and others, and engaging beyond their immediate circle. The findings are dis-cussed through three conceptual components (facilitators of change, the global mind-set, and manifestations of change) and their respective elements (italicized). Informants are referred to in the findings as either AUS/NZ or EU with identifying Arabic numbers (AUS/NZ 6, EU 5). Students are identified with Roman numerals (AUS xx, EU viii). Quotes in-text are noted with inverted commas.

The first phase of the research involved a purposive sample of Australian and European Union (including the United Kingdom) higher education experts (n = 26). Twenty-five participants either worked in the European Union or Australia/New Zealand, one in the United States. All participants were employed in universities, peak higher education non-government organizations (NGOs), or key intergovernmental organizations (IGO) involved with higher education policy and funding in the European Union. Expert status of participants was gauged by scholarly publications, reputation, and experience. Two postgraduate students involved with international postgraduate student organizations were included. Gender was balanced and there was ethnic diversity among participants.

The second phase of the research involved 21 Australian (n = 9) and European (German, Lithuanian, and Danish) public health mobility students (n = 12). There were 20 females in the group and age was between 18 and 45. A second interview was done with 4 Australians and 7 European students.

Table 1 demonstrates how the two worldviews in this research informed the cre-ation of the “process model for global citizen learning.” The table directly links quotes to the components and elements of the model shown in Figure 1.




Table 1. Examples of Informant and Student Quotes.

Informant Quotes Model Student Quotes

A very short experience can mark a turning point in life—a personal or an intellectual understanding of the world. (US 22)

Facilitators of change

I didn’t have a phone . . . I couldn’t call home . . . there was no Internet . . . the middle of nowhere . . . no one spoke English . . . no one was smiling at us. (AUS xxv)

Mobility experiences can confirm prejudices rather than challenge . . . mobility per se won’t do it. (AUS/NZ Z5)

Out of the comfort zone

I was in a state of shock . . . I’m the oldest student at the university and accommodation . . . this was really hard. (EU vi)

Reduced to living, eating and cleaning with so many culturally diverse others, you learn to get along. (UK 18)

Interpersonal encounters

. . . I had the possibility to communicate with people . . . I felt my isolation shrink. (EU vi)

The key is whether they’ve undergone the imaginative challenge of entering into another culture. (AUS/NZ 1)

A new friend said, “It’s not the bloody end of the world you know.” okay this is the shit pile, just chill a bit, you know it’s going to get better. (AUS xvi)

It’s that relational cosmopolitism, that capacity to enter into the imaginative world of the other. (AUS/NZ 1)

Interpersonal relationships

If she and I had met in our Australian lives, we wouldn’t be friends., we’re different. (AUS xxi)

Previously, I wouldn’t become friends with people who had bad English. I realized that perception was wrong. (AUS xxvi)

And lots of these things you cannot directly teach. You can at best be a role model. (EU 11)

Cosmopolitan role model

That teacher’s lectures made me think that I could do something for others, like in the future. (EU ix)

An educator who has passion . . . interconnected . . . trans-disciplinary . . . in practice . . . not just theory. (AUS/NZ 6)

From his experience in travel . . . he taught us how to do something, not what to do, how to have more courage . . . he did influence me and I was excited. (EU iv)

“Habits of mind,” (AUS/NZ 5) Global mind-set If there’s someone there babying you . . . there won’t be any self-reflection or self-realizations. (AUS xxi)

“Ways of thought” . . . “basics of knowing that cultures differ” (AUS 19)

“An integrated capacity for thinking differently”

I am quite patriotic . . . now I think we need to be critical of our own country too. (AUS/NZ xiv)

(continued)



Lilley et al. 233

Facilitators of Change

The facilitators of change are discussed through out of the comfort zone, interpersonal encounters, interpersonal relationships, and the cosmopolitan role model. To infor-mants and students, out of the comfort zone was recognized as the fundamental facili-tator of “change,” and it applied to any disorienting situation that creates a sense of uncertainty, personal discomfort, or dilemma. Students emphasized how coping with these situations allowed them to think, reflect, and grow personally and intellectually. Examples from both groups included being away from family and friends, language difficulties, cultural differences, having to engage with different others, saving your-self in new or different situations, coping, interpersonal conflict, and differences in university structure and support and approaches to learning.

Informant Quotes Model Student Quotes

“Systems thinking” (AUS/NZ 6)

To be taken out of your own daily life and your views you . . . it’s easy to judge others but then when you see yourself . . . you’re exactly the same. (EU xii)

“Transferring of competences” (EU 23)

I was very narrow minded . . . it sounds so cliché the whole soul searching . . . (AUS xvi)

“Epistemic virtues” help us to think morally and productively . . . reflexivity, relationality, social imaginary and criticality. (AUS/NZ 4)

I had never thought about it from their perspective. (AUS xx)

“Relational cosmopolitanism” (AUS 1)

I got this perspective that the world actually isn’t that big . . . there isn’t any difference between the human being. (EU x)

I look for evidence of volunteering, social enterprise engagement . . .

Manifestations of change

Perspectives on family, friends, uni and life, the world, everything has changed. (AUS xv)Broadened

perspectives . . . I think that is a mark of

maturity and . . .Accelerated

maturityIn terms of growth, going on exchange

accelerates it. (AUS xvi) . . . being other-centered

rather than highly narcissistic and self-centered. (AUS/NZ 5)

Cosmopolitan hospitality

The amount of people that I’ve helped on public transport and international students. You know you just have more time for people. (AUS xxi)

They come back with life experiences, mostly good and different attitudes to life and study (AUS/NZ 2)

Widened horizons

The key thing about the exchange, for me is, it’s not so hard. If you really want something, everything’s possible. (EU iii)

Table 1. (continued)




Some students had never lived away from home, yet regardless of age, students discussed unsettling “shock” emotions. Older students experienced disorientation and dilemmas, suggesting age is not necessarily a protective factor. Maturity brought its own challenges in terms of partner relationships “at home” and living among younger students. In many situations, students were out of the comfort zone with co-nationals through challenging interpersonal relationships in share housing and travel. Yet, away from their known supports, students had to confront the “reality” of interpersonal con-flict. Several informants thought out of the comfort zone experiences at home or abroad, even for short periods, could facilitate life-changing realizations; mobility per se was not considered the panacea for “change.” Informants suggested volunteering and service learning as opportunities to challenge students’ “comfort zone” at home.

When students were asked how they emerged from this difficult time, many attrib-uted their emotional reorientation to interpersonal encounters with diverse others. Students discussed how they became more open, aware, and receptive of “others.” They started to listen to the perspectives of new and different friends (including co-nationals). These encounters made them reflect on their situation, question their assumptions, and consider alternative points of view.

Students discussed an expanded understanding of interpersonal relationships in terms of being more open to different perspectives, questioning their assumptions of others, and appreciating the nuances and depth of relationships. Many learnt to

Figure 1. Conceptualizing the process of global citizen learning.



Lilley et al. 235

confront and deal with difficult interpersonal relationship situations, and described the resilience and confidence they developed in response to confronting and solving diverse types of relationship dilemmas. Many European students learned to make friends and develop interpersonal relationships more easily by discarding their cul-tural norm of interpersonal distance and formality. UK 18 related how powerful the consequences of “share housing” can be. UK 18 considered more could be gained by better integration of domestic and international students in common pursuits beyond the classroom to promote global citizen learning. According to this informant, there was global-to-local significance of enhancing social cohesion more broadly in stu-dents’ lives through interpersonal challenges with different others.

Four European students attributed their personal change in perspectives and behav-iors to an influential teacher. The cosmopolitan role model explains how an inspiring teacher challenged and influenced their thinking, reasoning, and frames of reference. Inspired by the academics’ personal qualities, teaching style, and global experiences, these students explained how they were now participating more enthusiastically in study. They were becoming more “other centered” and open to other perspectives, and were broadening their horizons. The role model’s teaching style made international and comparative learning more meaningful to them. In summary, out of the comfort zone, interpersonal encounters, interpersonal relationships, and the cosmopolitan role model took students to the edge of their knowing and understanding. Through their exposure to dilemmas, uncertainty, disequilibrium, encounters, relationships, and a cosmopolitan role model, these students were developing a global mind-set and were thinking differently.

Global Mind-Set

This component explains the student capacities and mind-set for moral and transfor-mative reasoning. The informants’ perspectives provide theoretical insight into a global mind-set, whereas the students, through their stories, embody what it means to use this mind-set during the process of “change.” The global mind-set can be thought of as both a facilitator and a manifestation of student change, and is conceptualized as the generating center of global citizen learning. The students’ examples of transforma-tive thinking align well with the informants’ theoretical perspectives in Table 1 and provide practical insight into a developing global mind-set. The commonality among students’ stories supported their authenticity.

The “epistemic virtues” referred to by AUS/NZ 4 succinctly capture how students were thinking during their “change” experiences. Although the capacities are named as individual virtues, they contribute to an ongoing process of complex reasoning that comprises the global mind-set. Students were questioning their assumptions (critical-ity and reflexivity); were thinking comparatively about themselves and others, and other contexts (relationally); and were acknowledging their own faults (criticality). Students were imagining new possibilities practically and ethically (moral reasoning and social imaginary), and discussed their emotions and “soul searching” (AUS xv). In this way, students were integrating their emotions, feelings, intuition, and




imagination into a transforming state of consciousness and their sense of “being” (extra rational lens of transformative learning theory). Students had started to think comparatively about cultural and religious differences, different political systems such as taxation scales, and the level of government support provided through health sys-tems and the treatment of indigenous peoples. AUS xiv identified the dangers of blind patriotism and nationalism.

Providing theoretical insight into the students’ “transformatory” learning experi-ences, AUS/NZ 1 described imaginative and transformative learning as a process of “relational cosmopolitanism.” Through the process of developing a global mind-set, students were able to imagine and consider other perspectives and possibilities in many different contexts. They engaged with their emotions, feelings, imaginations, faults, self-realizations, assumptions, and beliefs, shifting frames of reference and changing self-identity. They were starting to make interconnections of knowledge across complex contexts. Students were recognizing the common humanity they share with “others” and were transforming and “becoming” different from what they were before; they were making and remaking themselves (Freire, 2004), as they were becoming global citizens.

Manifestations of Change

Rather than attempting to define the global citizen through individual attributes, this research suggests the four manifestations of change offer a realistic expectation of the global citizen in higher education. They are discussed through broadened perspec-tives, accelerated maturity, cosmopolitan hospitality, and widened horizons.

All students felt that they had broadened perspectives in many ways. They talked about “eye openers,” seeing the world and people differently, and considering other perspectives and possibilities they had not imagined previously. EU i had hoped that the mobility experience would “help see over the plate” in terms of a broader outlook on life, but was amazed to realize “there are many plates.” Many students were hum-bled by their lack of prior insight into the world beyond their national/regional bor-ders. Overall, students felt they had broadened their perspectives with regard to personal, societal, cultural, religious, and political differences. They realized that dif-ferent does not necessarily equate with right or wrong. They realized the importance of “gray.”

Students and informants acknowledged how powerful “out of the comfort zone” experiences are to personal growth and development and both groups discussed change in terms of accelerated maturity. Students described how coping experiences provided incremental steps of confidence building and maturity. Accelerated maturity was more marked in younger students, but then again, as explained by older students “I felt more mature than before” (EU i), and “I grew up a lot that half year” (EU vii). The transfor-matory “changes” described by older students in some respects was equally life chang-ing as younger students’ experiences.

Students’ transformed outlooks also translated into self-agency, engagement, and hospitable actions toward others. Students’ heightened awareness, responsibility, and



Lilley et al. 237

concern for others resonated with Peters and Tukeo’s (2010) and Derrida’s (2001) descriptions of cosmopolitan hospitality. Students were more interested in learning about cultural difference and being more “other” focused than previously. Students described their empathy, humility, patience, caring, and willingness to help others as a result of their mobility. Students discussed the humbling and thought-provoking expe-riences of “being” the “other.” As informant AUS/NZ 24 asserted “global citizens lis-ten and learn humility.” Moreover, US 12 explained when we learn from the other “we enter into it out of a sense of humility and not, here’s what I can do for you.” A number of students expressed how “stupid” they felt about not being more “other” focused before. Students’ hospitality extended to their views on refugees and religious differ-ence and international students. Social justice and environmental activism have been associated with the global citizen (Tarrant, 2010); however, US 12 felt those in higher education sometimes hold “lofty aspirations” for students as global citizens. For instance, US 10 believed activism was an unrealistic goal for all students. Instead, if students became more informed, socially aware consumers, it could suggest they are thinking about interconnected global consequences. The students in this research dem-onstrated modest steps toward starting to think like global citizens.

Through their widened horizons, students provided considerable insight into how they were recalibrating their future lives and careers. Students described enhanced motivation for study, changed career directions, heightened interest in global issues related to their study, and feelings of openness toward discovering other cultures and countries. Because of their future imaginings, several students broke off long-term relationships when they returned home. Their goals and future expectations of them-selves and their lives had changed. Some discussed putting marriage and family on the back burner with the aim of pursuing further study or travel.

The comparative evidence from the first and second rounds of student interviews suggested “change” was attributable to out of the comfort zone experiences, rather than normal maturational processes. Students maintained their global mind-set and altered frames of reference, yet were dealing with achieving their goals. These goals, expecta-tions, and future imaginings were things they had not contemplated previously. Following 11 second-round interviews, it became apparent the additional data did not add to the evidence in hand; saturation had been reached. The integrated analysis of data from informants and students demonstrated how the process of global citizen learning could be conceptualized through the facilitators, global mind-set, and mani-festations of change.

Discussion

A Model Conceptualizing the Process of Global Citizen Learning

The research captured multiple perspectives of student “change” that appear to be consistent with the global citizen (Morais & Ogden, 2011; Schattle, 2008), moral and transformative cosmopolitanism (Lilley et al., 2014; Vertovec & Cohen, 2002) and transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1991; Cranton, Dirx, Gozowa, 2006;




Kucukaydin & Cranton, 2012; Mälkki, 2010; E. W. Taylor, 2008). Modest steps toward developing an ethical disposition were demonstrated by their openness, tolerance, respect, and responsibility toward self, others, and the planet. The culmination of these findings is conceptualized in a model representing global citizen learning. The theo-retical process model presented is underpinned by literature and the findings in this research. The model comprises facilitators of change, global mind-set, and manifesta-tions of change that collectively give meaning to the global citizen learning process (see Figure 1).

The facilitators and manifestations of “change” feed into and are fed by the global mind-set that forms the generating center of the model representing global citizen learning. The social imaginary, reflexivity, relationality, and criticality are the epis-temic “tools and fuel” for the global mind-set. It is proposed that the process for “becoming and being” a global citizen is facilitated by exposure to emotional and challenging situations and circumstances that take a student out of the comfort zone. Given such exposures, students start to think differently through a global mind-set. These students presented with fundamental manifestations of “change.” The ongoing process of “change” is described as global citizen learning.

Facilitators of Change

The facilitators of change individually and collectively appeared to activate the stu-dent mind-set for thinking differently. Out of the comfort zone, identified as the pri-mary facilitator of student “change,” is consistent with other ontological and epistemological descriptions of transformative change. Barnett (2004) and Mälkki (2010) considered uncertainty, disequilibrium, and discomfort as essential to transfor-mative learning. Moreover, Freire (2004) explained that change cannot occur without risk. In response to their uncertainty and discomfort (from being out of the comfort zone), students engaged in self-reflection, self-realizations, and “soul-searching” to make sense of their situation. These thought processes assisted with restoring their emotional equilibrium. They transformed their frames of reference, and faced the real-ity of their situations, as they were starting to “become” and “be” something different. Being out of the comfort zone made students more receptive to learning from encoun-ters and dialogue with others, a finding discussed previously in terms of global citizen-ship (Derrida, 2001; Peters & Tukeo, 2010; Killick, 2012), cosmopolitanism (Delanty, 2011), and transformative learning theory (E. W. Taylor, 1998).

E. W. Taylor (1998) considered interpersonal relationships to be a central compo-nent of transformative learning; however, he thought more should be understood about the nature of these relationships (E. W. Taylor, 2007). The findings presented here highlight how engaging in interpersonal encounters and interpersonal relationships with different others stimulate a global mind-set. Students claimed their encounters and relationships made them more open to different types of friends and different per-spectives. They thought about the relational consequences of difference and ques-tioned assumptions of themselves and others (reflexivity). They explained how they learnt about the nuances of relationships and dealt with difficult relationship



Lilley et al. 239

situations. In particular, students developed resilience and confidence as they dealt with conflict, and several European students learnt from changing their cultural for-mality. Caruana (2014) believes that students develop reslience by drawing on their diversity in multi-cultural environments. It appeared these interpersonal encounters and interpersonal relationships acted as a catalyst for students to think differently about their developing sense of self and others. To Delanty (2011), the logic of cosmo-politanism is underpinned by “encounter, dialogue and exchange” (p. 652). Delanty explains, “It is in relationships that cultural phenomena such as identities, memories, values, beliefs, and trust are generated” (p. 641). This appeared to be the case for these students. Their interpersonal encounters and interpersonal relationships were influ-ential, as was an inspiring educator for several students.

Four students discussed how their comfort zone in learning was challenged by a cosmopolitan role model. He or she facilitated situations for them to engage with the “bigger picture” of the world. Students began to think about their study, lives, careers, and futures differently. Students were inspired by the role model’s personal qualities, teaching style, and global experiences. The students’ descriptions were consistent with Sanderson’s (2011) “ideal teacher.” Sanderson encourages teachers to explore their own cosmopolitan knowledge, outlooks, and experience, and to incorporate these in their disciplinary areas. However, according to E. W. Taylor (2008), classroom trans-formative learning is poorly understood with respect to the students’ role in transfor-mative learning and their relationship with the educator. This research identifies the powerful potential of the student/teacher relationship for taking students out of their “comfort zone in learning” to expand their global mind-set.

Global Mind-Set

The global mind-set is conceptualized as the generating center of global citizen learn-ing. Although informants provided theoretical insight into the notion of a global citi-zen’s “thinking, knowing and transforming identity,” the students’ stories appeared to exemplify these transformations and thinking capacities. To Rizvi (2009), an episte-mology of cosmopolitan learning involves the capacity to learn about others and our-selves in a socially constituted way. This research highlighted the extent of students’ self-discovery.

All cultural understanding is comparative because no understanding of others is possible without self-understanding. If this is so, then, not only is it important to emphasize historicity, criticality, and relationality, but also reflexivity in all our attempts to imagine and work toward better futures (Rizvi, 2009).

The historical context of students’ stories was not probed; however, their stories demonstrated their developing capacity for criticality, relationality, and reflexivity in the way they were thinking differently.

Students’ learning experiences were also consistent with transformative change described in transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1991). Students were develop-ing new frames of reference and began to recognize their shared humanity with others and the world. Students described how they had “become” or transformed into




something different from what they were before, in ways that can be linked to the four lenses of transformative learning theory (Dirkx et al., 2006). Students made the inter-connections of knowledge by thinking critically, reflexively, relationally, and imagina-tively to change attitudes, behaviors, and perspectives. They were challenging the certainty of knowledge (Kitchener & King, 1990). The emotional context of transfor-mative thinking described by these students appears consistent with the “extra rational lens” of transformative learning theory (Dirkx et al., 2006). To Dirkx and colleagues (2006), the extra rational lens of transformative learning involves an integration of “mind and soul.” The present authors, keeping critical distance from the contested nature of the “soul,” concur with Nussbaum (2010) and consider the “soul” as a word representing the human faculties of thought and reason. Transformative learning the-ory has been described as a theory in progress (Cranton et al., 2006; Kucukaydin & Cranton, 2012; Mälkki, 2010; E. W. Taylor, 2008). Building on this perspective, these findings add insight into the student experience of transformative “change” and the capacities of the global mind-set as they are learning to “become” global citizens

Manifestation of Change

Students manifested their changed state of “being” through broadened perspectives, accelerated maturity, cosmopolitan hospitality, and widened horizons. These manifes-tations could represent a realistic picture of the mind-set, attitudes, and behaviors of a global citizen in higher education. Mobility research has attempted to capture global citizenship through the measurement of individual attributes or dimensions of respon-sibility and civic engagement using complex quantitative instruments (Morais & Ogden, 2011, Tarrant, 2010). In modest ways, students in this research were engaging with diverse others and were acting on their changing beliefs (rational lens) (Freire, 2004; Mezirow, 1991). Student change occurred along a continuum of development (Daloz, 2000).

Epistemologically, their ways of “meaning making” and knowing were facilitated through encounters, relationships, and personal contextual situations (E. W. Taylor, 2007). Students recognized an ontological shift in their identity and sense of “being.” They were in the process of making and remaking themselves as beings capable of knowing (Freire, 2004). Students’ transformative changes did not align with interme-diate cosmopolitanism (Pogge, 2002), by displaying outrage at social injustice. However, students’ transformations triggered emancipatory agency in their attitudes and actions toward others (Freire & Shor, 1987), through their cosmopolitan hospital-ity and as a result of their widened horizons. From a practical perspective, the four manifestations of change could be used as learning aims and identifiable outcomes for an internationalized curriculum.

The combined participant findings resulted in a set of recognizable markers for the global citizen (Table 2). These markers are grouped as an “identikit” to infer that con-structing a global citizen is as complex as constructing a human face. These markers are by no means conclusive but are offered as a guide for educators and students to better understand what a global citizen means. Manifesting these markers could



Lilley et al. 241

suggest that the student is thinking with a global mind-set. Furthermore, these mani-festations are consistent with some of the soft skills employers desire (Jones, 2013).

The Euro-centric sample of informants and students is an acknowledged limitation. The evidence of transformatory change in all students in this research was an unantici-pated finding and may not be generalizable to other cohorts. Participant bias is possi-ble, as those willing to participate in this research may have been more receptive to undergoing “change” and keener to share their experience with the researcher. Furthermore, bias could be associated with a public health cohort or other socio-eco-nomic factors that were not identified in the research. However, the research is intended to stimulate an expanded research focus on conceptualizing the process of global citi-zen learning. Clearly, there is a need to test and further develop the conceptual model for global citizen learning. Cross-regional and broader disciplinary research on both cohorts of participants is recommended in the future. The self-reported nature of stu-dent change was a limitation, yet the student stories were overwhelmingly authentic to the researcher. Within its limitations, this research provides insiders’ perspectives to the experience of transformative change. The student stories ground the informants’ theoretical and practical perspectives.

Table 2. An “Identikit” of Markers for the Global Citizen.

Broad markers for the global citizen•• Leaves comfort zone

•• Shows courage to go on a mobility experience•• Shows courage by taking on challenges locally•• Mixes beyond social peers•• Engages and works with different “others”•• Engages in learning activities “out of the comfort zone”

•• Thinks differently•• Uses moral and ethical reasoning in problem solving

•• Questions assumptions•• Imagines other perspectives and possibilities•• Shows awareness of self and others•• Makes the interconnections of knowledge across complex local /global

constructs•• Recognizes common humanity and environmental sustainability

•• Engages beyond immediate circle of peers, family, and friends•• Engages with social and cultural others•• Shows “language pain tolerance” (patience, empathy, and willingness to under-

stand different accents and limited language skills)•• Volunteers in service and participates in community activities•• Assists others (cosmopolitan hospitality)

•• Shows a mature attitude and initiative•• Considers self, life, others, and career, and the world beyond narrow expectations.




Clearly, further research is required to identify and test the impact of appropriate out of the comfort zone experiences for domestic students to facilitate global citizen learning. It is beyond the scope of this article to expand at length on solutions to address this issue. However, recommendations for further research include the following:

1. Explore whether students’ expectations of learning could be altered to embrace “out of the comfort zone” learning experiences (e.g., service learning and vol-unteering, or specifically designed classroom activities) through different mar-keting approaches (advertising, website, Open Days, using mobility students as cosmopolitan role models).

2. Assess whether professional development for educators, on the theory and pro-cess of global citizen learning (identified in this research), motivates them to design and promote “out of the comfort zone” learning activities in their curriculum.

3. Explore whether “out of the comfort zone” learning activities (such as service learning and volunteering or specially designed classroom activities) contrib-ute to students’ developing capacities of a global mind-set (reflexivity, rela-tionality, the social imaginary, and criticality), for demonstrating markers of the global citizen or manifesting broadened perspectives, accelerated maturity, cosmopolitan hospitality, and widened horizons.

Conclusion

Moral and transformative cosmopolitanism and transformative learning theory under-pin the process of global citizen learning described in this article. The conceptual process model (Figure 1) captures the centrality of the global mind-set as the generat-ing center of global citizen learning. Reflexivity, relationality, criticality, and the social imaginary are the “tools and fuel” of the global mind-set for moral and transformative reasoning. The ongoing process of global citizen learning occurs in response to the facilitating situations and circumstances that occur when out of the comfort zone, through interpersonal encounters and interpersonal relationships with different “oth-ers” and in response to a cosmopolitan role model. Students learning to become global citizens present with common manifestations such as broadened perspectives, accel-erated maturity, cosmopolitan hospitality, and widened horizons. The model for global citizen learning offers conceptual insight and a pragmatic appreciation of students developing as global citizens. The “identikit” of markers (Table 2) offers practical insight (for students and educators) into what a global citizen might look like as a cur-ricula outcome. This article suggests that learning to become a global citizen is a pro-cess that occurs in response to particular facilitating situations that could be simulated through mobility comparable learning experiences “at home.” As such, educating all students as global citizens and work ready employees is closely aligned to a university international education agenda.



Lilley et al. 243

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Americal Association of Colleges and Universities (2012). Statement on liberal learning. Washington, DC: Author.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural dimensions of globalization (Public Worlds, Vol. 1). Minneapolis, MS: University of Minesota Press.

Appiah, A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. London, UK: Penguin.Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development,

23, 247-260.Barrie, S. (2004). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher

Education Research & Development, 23, 261-275.Beck, U. (2000). What is globalisation? Cambridge, UK: Polity.Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research

agenda. The British Journal of Sociology. 57, 1-23.Caruana, V. (2014). Re-thinking global citizenship in higher education: From cosmopolitanism

and international mobility to cosmopolitanization, resilience and resilient thinking. Higher Education Quarterly. 68, 85-104.

Collins, S., & Selina, H. (1998). Introducing Heidegger. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books.Cranton, P., Dirkx, J., Gozawa, J., Kasl, E., & Smith, R. (2006). Reflections on the sixth inter-

national transformative learning conference. Journal of Transformative Education. 4, 140-156.

Daloz, L. (2000). Transformative learning for the common good. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 103-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Delanty, G. (2011). Cultural diversity, democracy, and the prospects of cosmopolitanism: A theory of cultural encounters. The British Journal of Sociology, 62, 634-652.

Derrida, J. (2001). On cosmopolitanism and forgiveness. London, England: Routledge.Development Education Association (2006). The Global University: The role of the curriculum.

London, England: Author.De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America

and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Boston, MA: Centre for International Higher Education and the Program in Higher Education, Boston College.

Dirkx, J. (2008). The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. New directions for adult and continuing education. 120, 7-18.

Dirkx, J., Mezirow, J., & Cranton, P. (2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 4, 123-139.

Elwell, F. (1996). The sociology of Max Weber. Retrieved from http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm

Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of indignation. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.


http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm

http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm



Freire, P., & Shor, I. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Georgetown University. (2013). Recovery 2020: Job Growth and Education Requirements through 2020. Georgetown, WA: Author.

Green, M. (2012). What is global citizenship? (IAU Horizon). Paris, France: International Association of Universities, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

International Association of Universities. (2012). Affirming academic values in internationali-sation of higher education: A call for action. Paris, France: Author.

Jones, E. (2013). Internationalisation and employability: The role of intercultural experiences in the development of transferable skills. Public Money & Management, 33, 95-104.

Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2013). Graduate attributes and the internationalized curriculum: Embedding a global outlook in disciplinary learning outcomes. Journal of Studies in Higher Education, 17, 165-182.

Killick, D. (2012). Seeing ourselves-in-the-world: Developing global citizenship through inter-national mobility. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 372-389.

Kitchener, K., & King, P. (1990). The reflective judgement model: Transforming assumptions about knowing. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adult-hood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 159-176). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Klein, H., & Myers, D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23, 67-93.

Kucukaydin, I., & Cranton, P. (2012). Critically questioning the discourse of transformative learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 63, 43-66.

Lilley, K., Barker, M., & Harris, N. (2014). Conceptualising the global citizen in the 21st cen-tury business school. Journal of International Education in Business, 7, 72-84.

Maguire Associates Inc. (2012). The role of higher education and career development: Employers’ perspectives. Washington, DC: The Chronicle of Higher Education, America’s Public Media Market Place.

Mälkki, K. (2010). Building on Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning: Theorising the challenges to reflection. Journal of Transformative Education, 8, 42-62.

Marginson, S. (2007). Globalization, the “Idea of a University,” and its ethical regimes. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1-15.

Marginson, S. (2012). The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 28, 353-370.

Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2011). Ideas for intercultural education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as Transformation. Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Morais, D., & Ogden, A. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 445-466.



Lilley et al. 245

Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why the democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Peters, M., & Tukeo, S. (2010). Cultural exchange, study abroad, and discourse of the other. In S. Marginson, P. Murphy, & M. Peters (Eds.), Global creation: Space, mobility and synchrony in the age of the knowledge economy (pp. 266-272). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Pogge, T. (2002). Cosmopolitanism: A defense. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 5(3), 86-91.

Pring, R. (1986). Aims, problems, and curricular contexts. In P. Tomlinson & M. Quinton (Eds.), Values across the curriculum (pp. 181-194). South Sussex, UK: The Farmer Press.

Rhoads, R., & Szelényi, K. (2011). Global citizenship and the university: Advancing social life and relations in an interdependent world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards cosmopolitan learning. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 30, 253-268.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. New York, NY: Routledge.Sanderson, G. (2011). Internationalisation and teaching in higher education. Higher Education

Research Development, 30, 661-676.Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets,

state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Tarrant, M. (2010). A conceptual framework for exploring the role of studies abroad in nuturing

global citizenship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 443-463.Taylor, E. W. (1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical review.

(ERIC Monograph Information Series No. 374). Colombus, OH: ERIC Clearninghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 173-191.

Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Learning, 119, 5-14.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2009). The new dynamics of higher education and research for societal change and development. Paris, France: Author.

Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (2002). Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Author Biographies

Kathleen Lilley is an educator, researcher and project manager in international higher educa-tion. As Australian Lead for an Australian-European Joint Mobility Project, she found global citizenship to be poorly translated from policy to practice in universities. Her PhD explored the conceptual, organisational and pedagogical implications of educating global citizens.

Michelle Barker is professor of international business and Asian studies, Griffith Business School, Griffith University. Her research and consultancies are in the areas of intercultural competency development, internationalization of the curriculum, intercultural adjustment, and workplace bullying.

Neil Harris, PhD, is an associate professor at School of Medicine, Griffith University, Australia. Neil’s teaching and research areas include environmental and population health, social determi-nants of health, stakeholder engagement in ecological sustainability and settings approaches for health promotion.



Exploring the process of global citizen learning and the student mindset

Documents

Transcript of Exploring the process of global citizen learning and the student mindset